"This will be the defining moment of this presidency...I wouldn't put more combat troops in there."

Nov 10, 2009

Murtha Blasts War Debt

America's economy and military - one reeling from job losses, the other strained by nearly a decade at war - will soon suffer another blow when the trillion-dollar bill comes due for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rep. John Murtha said.


"This will be the defining moment of this presidency," Murtha said during an interview with the Tribune-Review. "I believe we can do it without 40,000 troops. ... I wouldn't put more combat troops in there." Murtha spoke to the Trib in the Capitol hearing room of the powerful defense appropriations subcommittee, which he chairs.

"In the end, it's going to affect the economic influence of this country," Murtha said.

It costs $1 billion for every 1,000-troop increase in Afghanistan, a country whose rugged geography and lack of infrastructure make it difficult to maintain supply lines, Murtha said.

"What if it doesn't work? Are you going to ask for 100,000? Are you going to ask for 200,000?" Murtha said. "We can't win it militarily."

"We have a tendency in this country to think, 'Well, we just send in more troops and that'll answer it,'" Murtha said. The Vietnam War showed that not to be true, said Murtha, who served in Vietnam as a Marine. "We had 500,000 troops. That wasn't enough. Why? Because we didn't do it right. We didn't trust the Vietnamese."

The same is true in Afghanistan, he said.


read: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib
/news/s_652132.html

The guy's been in office for 10 months. If you listen to our crack journalists he's had 20 or 30 "defining moments" so far. And of course he's failed the test every time. I tuned out this media bullshit months (actually years) ago. It sucks to see Democratic legislators falling for the beltway spin like this.

. . . along the lines of the Cambodia escalation (as Murtha is clearly reflecting on) this certainly is a defining moment for the country. Will we become locked into a perpetual state of aggression in Afghanistan, or will we take a step back. I personally don't feel there's a lot of middle ground. Any escalation or dallying around with our military there threatens to have a counterproductive effect on the most modest goals behind the occupation - including any U.S. national security concerns. In or out. That's the choice I see. Perpetual war or begin a path to a withdrawal.

But it is still pain free to the overwhelming majority of Americans. The decision to commit more troops to Afghanistan won't have much direct effect on the lives of most of us. As far as the wisdom of the decision, I think it's stupid. But I'm hoping Obama has the sense to condition the troop commitment to a series of well defined, measurable goals, so that a path is provided to pull people out if the metrics are not achieved within the time frames set forth. Thereby giving these Pentagon blowhards enough rope to hang themselves.

The "War on Poverty"
the "Great Society"
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Project Head Start,
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
Medicare
his efforts in support of space exploration ??????????????


NO! Viet Nam..Viet Nam Viet Nam..




This very well could be a defining moment...I hope that it turns out not to be, due to President
Obama NOT sending more troops into Afghanistan.

"Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today." I liked LBJ, he was doing some good things, but Vietnam, it just drowned out the rest. I hope that doesn't happen now.

...not that Obama's prior work for Business International Corporation (CIA front) wasn't the tip off everyone needed to see prior to the election. If only Obama had a 'John Perkins' moment. Now there's something to hope for. Real change.

:rofl:

you won't be laughing. Plus, he will assure his not being re-elected; the economy can't sustain it.

The Stupak amendment was a defining moment.

It's not going to be helpful to either cause to muck up this thread with that issue.

And Obama knows this.

Troops in Iraq ready to draw down there to go to Afghanistan

There are many parallels here. Obama does not trust Karzai and vice-versa. If you did not trust your partner who is thousands of miles away, would you give him billions of dollars? (In this case it's more military backing worth billion$)

I wouldn't. Obama should dither some more.